from Paul Caron’s blog, with commentary.
From the Nat’l Law Journal.
Will be interesting to see whether this portends a shift in emphasis in corporate legal office from pure lateral hiring strategy to entry-level hiring. The principal roadblock has been the costs of training. But perhaps establishing creative relationships between imaginative corporations and innovative law school (note Cisco-Colorado partnership described in the article) will augur a new approach to in-house hiring and training.
Interesting description by Bill Henderson (Indiana-B) on course on disruption and LPOs.
Two cheers from me for this.
Yes, law students would benefit of having some exposure to the trends in legal outsourcing and efficiency-enhancing companies and products. And I like the strategy of having students do research and make presentations (by contrast to, say, having a dog-and-pony show of the companies presenting).
However, in the law school setting, given precious time we have to provide education about law and legal skills, focusing on businesses that disrupt traditional modalities of legal services seems something to come later, not during, legal education. Don’t get me wrong; educating our students about law and the legal profession requires attention to how law and the profession is changing. But this is best grounded, to me, in what skills our new lawyers can be and ought to be expected to provide. Perhaps let them imagine what the LPO market looks like from a deep immersion in “what lawyers need and ought to do” rather than focus explicitly on the companies and their service models.
Still and all, two cheers are warranted. These efforts help students better understand how our professional world is changing rapidly and, too, how business savvy folks are capitalizing on (and profiting from) these changes.
Some interesting data on LSAT breakdowns. Counters the narrative that high-credentialed students are fleeing law school in especially high numbers.
That said, these data does not refute the brute fact that applicant decline is not located principally in the low-band LSATs. Law schools across the board are feeling the pinch (albeit to a greater or lesser degree).
The ever growing strategic focus on legal education for non-lawyers builds on an emerging insight about the nature of legal education. I would describe this as follows: Legal education consists of three large sticks in a general bundle; one is the development of lawyerly skills, what has long been described as educating students to “think like a lawyer.” Circular on its own terms, to be sure, but the idea captures the admixture of reasoning, communication, and advocacy that is characteristic of professionals who work in the legal domain on behalf of clients (using “clients” here broadly to include, as well, public service and law reform activities). Training lawyers requires a coherent sense on the part of educational providers of what mix of skills is encompassed in this category of lawyerly skills. What, in short, does a young lawyer need to know to be able to “think like a lawyer?”
Next is the development of skills essential to engaging in the practice of law. Experiential learning is at the heart of this; yet, much of what we aim to do throughout the curriculum, including the so-called doctrinal classes, is (or at least ought to be) channeled in the direction and service of enhancing the ability of students to practice law. (These include, although I won’t say anything more about this here, the development of a professional identity and an ethical compass tied to the lawyer’s profession, all of which are properly encompassed in “skills training”).
Finally, we aim to provide substantive content, starting with the foundation laid in the first year and extended, cumulatively, through the coursework provided, sometimes required, sometimes elective, in the upper division. In short, we expect our graduating students to know some law, and be able to draw upon their best analytical skills to reason in the law as they tackle, first, the bar exam, and, next, the demands of the fields in which they engage and practice.
What our efforts to train non-lawyers do, in essence, is to unbundle legal education. We look at ways of developing some relevant skills in individuals who will not practice law, but who will deploy law and work with lawyers on accomplishing their professional objectives. This is skills training to be sure, but it is the training in skills that map not only legal practice, but onto the professional domain in which these non-lawyers operate and function. Moreover, we aim to give these individuals substantive legal knowledge, knowledge which can and ought to be applied in settings in which law and the legal environment matters to their field, to their performance, and to their enterprise. None of them are truly taking the place of lawyers; rather, they are accumulating knowledge which enables them to engage and work with lawyers, on behalf of their objectives and with the newly acquired benefit of a common vocabulary and a more fruitful pathway to important objectives.
“Thinking like a lawyer” is not a part of this enterprise except in the very broad sense that non-lawyers can learn in the unique environment of a law school how lawyers reason and analyze. Unbundling legal education in the sense I describe it here means providing not “law school lite” for these students but, rather, a coherent structure of training that is suited to the goals and tied squarely to the objectives of the professionals who operate in a space in which law is relevant and, indeed, omnipresent.
Post containing some data.
NU’s new MSL program is referenced in the post, along with mentions of some innovative new programs from peer law schools.
In all, this is a superb post by Prof. Mueller at Pepperdine. It really captures the nub of what law schools like ours are doing, that is, expanding the scope of legal education by looking at the products that we produce. Training new lawyers to be sure, but also providing legal training to the myriad professionals who use, if not practice in the strict sense, law.